People v. Williams

Decision Date21 December 1992
Docket NumberNo. S022660,S022660
Citation14 Cal.Rptr.2d 441,841 P.2d 961,4 Cal.4th 354
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 841 P.2d 961 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wash Jones WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Kenneth I. Clayman, Public Defender, and Neil B. Quinn, Deputy Public Defender, Ventura, as amici curiae on behalf of, defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attys. Gen., Richard B. Iglehart and George Williamson, Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., John H. Sugiyama, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herbert F. Wilkinson and Joanne S. Abelson, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr., Dist. Atty., Gerald McC. Franklin, Deputy Dist. Atty., Santa Barbara, Elizabeth Bader, Michael Willemsen, Schachter, Kristoff, Orenstein & Berkowitz, Margaret A. Murray, San Francisco, Garcia & Schnayerson, Philip A. Schnayerson and Joseph E. Mockus, Hayward, as amici curiae on behalf of, plaintiff and respondent.

ARABIAN, Justice.

Our task is to delineate the circumstances under which a trial court is required to give a requested instruction regarding a rape defendant's bona fide and reasonable, but mistaken, belief of consent to sexual intercourse. We conclude that the instruction was not warranted in this case, and hence reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On Saturday, November 4, 1989, Deborah S. and her sister Jenny S. were staying at the Episcopal Sanctuary homeless shelter at Eighth and Market Streets in San Francisco. They had arrived in San Francisco from Wichita, Kansas approximately two weeks earlier. Deborah and Jenny returned to the shelter mid-Saturday morning after completing some errands. Jenny entered the shelter, and Deborah waited outside.

Shortly after Jenny's departure, Deborah was approached by defendant Wash Jones Williams. Deborah had not met Williams before, and he did not introduce himself.

[841 P.2d 963] Williams was an electrician, and a volunteer and resident at the shelter. He had noticed Deborah at the shelter the day before, but had not spoken with her. Deborah was 28 years old, 5 feet 1 inch tall, and weighed 117 pounds. Williams was 52 years old, 6 feet 1 inch tall, and weighed 220 pounds.

Williams asked if Deborah would like to get some coffee, "no strings attached." Williams and Deborah agree that for the remainder of the morning they walked, engaged in conversation, and ate some food.

Deborah testified to the events that followed that day. During a stop at a Jack-In-The-Box, Williams asked her if she would like to watch television. Deborah said the only place she knew of to watch television for free was the Osmond Center, located next door to the shelter. Williams later told her the place he was talking about to watch television was not far away.

Deborah and Williams walked towards Turk Street. Williams purchased a bracelet from a street vendor for Deborah. The area was unfamiliar to her. Deborah thought they were going to "his friends or something" to watch television, because "That is what he was talking about." Williams mentioned nothing about sex, and in fact led Deborah to believe he was not interested in sex because he mentioned that he had a daughter about Deborah's age.

They stopped at a building with a gate across the front, and Williams rang a buzzer. While Deborah did not see a sign in front of the building, the building was later identified as the Dahlia Hotel. Once inside, Williams rented a room, and asked the clerk for a sheet. At this point Deborah realized they were in a hotel, and were not going to a friend's house.

Deborah walked into the room ahead of Williams. She noticed that there was no television. When Williams arrived, she asked him how it was that he wanted to watch television when there was no television in the room. He lay down on the bed and said he wanted Deborah to lie down beside him. She said that she was used to sitting up during the day, and suggested that he get back the $20 he paid for the room. Deborah went to the door to let herself out, but was unable to release the bolt lock. Williams came up behind her, and put his hand on the door. She told him to "make it easy for the both of us" by trying to get his money back. He "hollered" at her that "he didn't spend $20.00 for nothing." He punched her in the left eye. He said he would count to five, and he wanted her "over there in the bed." She said "no," so he pushed her down on the bed. Williams asked her if she wanted him to use a condom. She said no because "I am not going to do it anyway," and that she did not come there for that.

Williams told Deborah to take off her pants. She asked "Why do I need to take off my pants?" He repeated his demand that she take off her pants, and said that he did not like to hurt people. She was scared, so she removed her pants. He took off his clothes, got on top of her, and attempted intercourse. His penis partially penetrated her vagina. Deborah said that she was going to tell her sister and the Sanctuary "what he really was." He screamed that he "didn't give a fuck." He said something about "too dry," and then licked his fingers and rubbed saliva on his penis. He reinserted his penis and engaged in sexual intercourse for approximately 10 to 15 minutes. She screamed and tried to push him off, but because of the disparity in their size, her efforts were unsuccessful.

Once Williams had ejaculated, he allowed Deborah to get up and get dressed. He offered her $50, but she said she was not a prostitute and did not want the money. She threw the bracelet at him.

Deborah left the room first. She returned to the Sanctuary, where she asked directions to the nearest police station. She walked to the San Francisco Hall of Justice, and reported that she had been raped. At this point her eye was so swollen she could hardly see out of it. According to witnesses other than Deborah, an officer took her statement, and then drove her to the hospital where he and then another officer waited with her for approximately seven hours until she was examined.

                [841 P.2d 964]  The examining nurse and doctor testified that the injury to the eye was more consistent with a punch than a slap.  Vaginal slides showed the presence of semen.  In addition to the eye injury, the doctor noted complaints of pain on the right side of her neck and along the right side near the lower ribs, and tenderness along the right side of the uterus.    The doctor testified that Deborah appeared scared, and that the examination was consistent with her complaint of sexual assault
                

Williams gave a dramatically different account of the encounter. He testified that prior to entering the hotel room, he neither wanted nor expected to have sex. However, when he entered the room, Deborah hugged and kissed him and began to remove her clothes, whereupon Williams also began to remove his clothes. Williams asserted that he is diabetic and almost impotent, and therefore Deborah had to fondle his genitals for 10 to 15 minutes before helping him to insert his penis into her vagina. This was the only act of intercourse. He and Deborah never discussed watching television.

After intercourse, Deborah told Williams she needed $50 because her sister was moving in with her boyfriend, and she was not sure if she would fit in. He told her he did not "turn tricks" and refused to give her the money. She became hostile and "Her personality changed completely." She threatened to create a problem for him by telling Father Nunn and her sister if he did not give her the money. Williams said that he did not care whom she told, that she had come to the room voluntarily, and "we made love." Deborah called Williams a "welching Nigger," and said she knew how to "fix" him, since her father and either brother or brothers-in-law had previously raped her. Angry at these remarks, Williams slapped her hard on the right, not the left, side of her face. He asked for the return of the bracelet, and she threw it on the bed. As she got dressed, Williams asked Deborah why she did not wipe away his sperm, and she said that she wanted to preserve the evidence.

The trial court found that the evidence supported a jury instruction regarding consent. It refused, however, to give an instruction requested by both defendant and the People on reasonable and good faith but mistaken belief as to consent. (CALJIC No. 10.65.) 1

A jury found Williams guilty of two counts of forcible rape (PEN. CODE § 2612, now subd. (a)(2). 3 ) and one count of false imprisonment ( § 236). He was sentenced to eight years in state prison.

The Court of Appeal reversed, finding there was substantial evidence in support of defendant's request for a Mayberry instruction. (People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143, 125 Cal.Rptr. 745, 542 P.2d 1337.) In particular, the court relied on defendant's testimony that Deborah "willingly accompanied him to the hotel after spending several hours in his company, that she did not object when the hotel clerk handed him a bedsheet, that once inside the room she hugged and kissed him and initiated

                [841 P.2d 965]  sexual intercourse, and that during the hour they were inside the room the hotel clerk did not hear any screams or other sounds indicating physical violence."   The Court of Appeal stated that "Based on this evidence, the jury should have been given the instruction.  While defendant has the burden of proving he had a bone [sic] fide and reasonable belief of consent, he need only raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury whether this belief existed ... and should be allowed the chance to prove this defense."
                
II. DISCUSSION

In People v. Mayberry, supra, 15 Cal.3d 143, 125 Cal.Rptr. 745, 542 P.2d 1337, this court held that a defendant's reasonable and good faith mistake of fact regarding a person's consent to sexual intercourse is a defense to rape. (Id....

To continue reading

Request your trial
233 cases
  • Christian S., In re
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1994
    ...in order for a mistake of fact to constitute a defense, it must be an honest and reasonable one. (E.g., People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, 360-361, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 841 P.2d 961; People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143, 155, 125 Cal.Rptr. 745, 542 P.2d 1337; People v. Hernandez (19......
  • People v. Marshall, S007766
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1997
    ...if it is supported by substantial evidence, that is, evidence sufficient to deserve jury consideration. (People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, 361, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 841 P.2d 961; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684 & fn. 12, 160 Cal.Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1.) As we have stressed i......
  • People v. Vu
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 6, 2006
    ...respects and not in others; it may believe parts of a witness's testimony without believing all of it. (People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, 364, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 841 P.2d 961.) The jury in this case would be fully justified in concluding B.'s and M.'s sudden and unexpected identific......
  • People v. Berryman
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 27, 1993
    ...this case, intent to kill--"there is no prejudice arising from the omission." (People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, 371-372, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 841 P.2d 961 (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.).) Defendant argues to the contrary, attacking both our analysis and our conclusion. He is unpersuasive. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...People v. Williams (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1326, §9:50.5 People v. Williams (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1535, §7:84.1 People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, fn 2, §11:134 People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, §9:120 People v. Williams (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 648, §9:117.3 People v. Williams (1998)......
  • DMV proceedings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • March 30, 2022
    ...apply to P.A.S. devices that determine the concentration of alcohol in the blood, was rejected by both Bury and People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, fn 2. The regulations do have applicability, though compliance with them is not the only means for establishing admission into evidence of......
  • §33.05 RAPE: MENS REA
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Chapter 33 Rape (Sexual Assault)
    • Invalid date
    ...act of intercourse. There should be a requirement of culpability as to the aspect of the act that is wrongful.[140] . People v. Williams, 841 P.2d 961, 966 (Cal. 1992); see also R. v. Park, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836 (there must be an "air of reality" to the mistake claim). ...
  • § 33.05 Rape: Mens Rea
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2022 Title Chapter 33 Rape (Sexual Assault)
    • Invalid date
    ...of the intercourse. There should be a requirement of culpability as to the aspect of the act that is wrongful.[140] People v. Williams, 841 P.2d 961, 966 (Cal. 1992); see also R. v. Park, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836 (there must be an "air of reality" to the mistake...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT